Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Syllabification patterns in
Arabic dialects : long segments
and mora sharing*
Janet C. E. Watson
University of Salford
In Classical Arabic and many modern Arabic dialects, syllables ending in VVC
or in the left leg of a geminate have a special status. An examination of Kiparsky’s
(2003) semisyllable account of syllabification types and related phenomena in
Arabic against a wider set of data shows that while this account explains much
syllable-related variation, certain phenomena cannot be captured, and several
dialects appear to exhibit conflicting syllable-related phenomena. Phenomena not
readily covered by the semisyllable account commonly involve long segments –
long vowels or geminate consonants. In this paper, I propose for relevant dialects
a mora-sharing solution that recognises the special status of syllables incorporat-
ing long segments. Such a mora-sharing solution is not new, but has been
proposed for the analysis of syllables containing long segments in a number of
languages, including Arabic (Broselow 1992, Broselow et al. 1995), Malayalam,
Hindi (Broselow et al. 1997) and Bantu languages (Maddieson 1993, Hubbard
1995).
1 Introduction
The syllabic typology of Arabic vernaculars has attracted various gener-
ative approaches over the years. One of the most significant, Kiparsky’s
(2003) semisyllable account of syllables and moras in Arabic, differs
from other generative approaches in terms of the amount of data covered,
* I am very grateful to the following : Jonathan Owens for his comments on early
versions of this paper, and for answering my questions on Libyan Arabic;
Christophe Pereira for providing and checking data on Libyan Tripoli Arabic, and
for reading the paper ; my husband, James Dickins, for discussing data examples
from Central Urban Sudanese; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero for encouraging sugges-
tions during the 14th Manchester Phonology Meeting ; Judith Broadbent and
S. J. Hannahs for making pertinent comments; the Semitic Institute at the
University of Heidelberg for a visiting scholarship in summer 2006 during which
time I completed this paper ; Ian Maddieson, for answering my mail on mora
splitting in Bantu languages ; three anonymous reviewers for Phonology ; and Brian
Joseph, for encouraging me to write the paper in the first place, and for making
challenging comments. I, of course, take full responsibility for any remaining errors
and inconsistencies.
335
336 Janet C. E. Watson
the division of the dialects into three syllable types and the linking of
various syllable-related phenomena with syllabification patterns. How-
ever, an examination of this account against a wider set of data shows that
while the semisyllable account explains much Arabic syllable-related
variation, a number of dialects appear to exhibit conflicting dialect
phenomena.
I begin by presenting Kiparsky’s semisyllable analysis of three different
types of dialects in Arabic – those in which morphologically derived CCC
clusters are syllabified as CVCC (VC dialects), CCC (C dialects) and
CCVC (CV dialects) respectively. This analysis, the first both to account
for C dialects in addition to VC and CV dialects and to link VC dialects to
C dialects, also explains a large number of syllable-related phenomena in
the dialects.
A closer look at some of the data and consideration of new data
shows that the analysis cannot cope with all syllabification phenomena
for all dialects. Dialects that fail to exhibit predicted phenomena
most consistently are those in which derived CCC clusters are typically
syllabified as CCVC – Kiparsky’s CV dialects. The extent to which the
analysis fully accounts for some surface forms in VC dialects is also
questioned. Dialect phenomena not readily covered by the semisyllable
account most commonly involve long segments – long vowels or geminate
consonants.
In this extension to Kiparsky (2003), syllables incorporating long seg-
ments are distinguished from syllables ending in final consonant clus-
ters in relevant dialects, and accounted for by means of a mora-sharing
analysis, a solution that draws on proposals for the analysis of syllables
containing, or ending in the first portion of, long segments in a number
of languages, including Arabic (Broselow 1992, Broselow et al. 1995,
1997), Malayalam (Broselow et al. 1997), Bantu languages (Maddieson
1993, Maddieson & Ladefoged 1993, Hubbard 1995) and American
English (Frazier 2005). As a result of this modification, the three-way
typology put forward by Kiparsky for Arabic is extended to a four-way
typology.
(2) w
m m m
(5) w
s s
m m m m
q i l t l u
Egyptian
Hudaida
Meccan
Yariimi
Middle
Yaafi‘i
Cairo
San‘a
Ibb
Al-
-CCC-=-CCiC Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
-CC# Y Y Y Y Y Y Y *
*#CC- * * * Y Y Y Y Y
*metathesis -CCiC-V=CiCC-V Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
pausal devoicing/glottalisation * Y Y Y Y Y Y *
*HVD postgeminates * * ? Y Y Y Y Y
CSS * * * * * Y * *
*CVVC- * * * * * Y * *
*CCC * * * * * Y Y Y
(b)
Çukurova
Kinderib
‘Aw¿m}a
NaDhiir
Tripoli
Libyan
Beirut
Haifa
Ras-
Al-
Il-
-CCC-=-CCiC Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
*-CC# Y Y Y Y Y Y */Y
#CC- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
metathesis -CCiC-V=CiCC-V Y Y * * Y Y *
*pausal devoicing/glottalisation Y Y * * * * Y
HVD postgeminates Y Y Y Y * Y Y
*CSS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
-CVVC- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
opaque epenthesis/stress Y Y * ? * Y Y
Table I
Syllabification patterns in Arabic dialects: (a) CV dialect features;
(b) VC dialect features.
F F
s s
m m m m m
s a m n s a m <n>
6 Recent acoustic research on pausal forms in San‘ani Arabic has shown that glot-
talisation may affect any final syllable – including CVV, where it manifests itself
most commonly as creaky voice followed by glottal closure – as long as the utterance
in which it falls receives sentence stress (/marag/ [marak?] ‘ broth ’, /arba?/ [arba?)]
‘ four ’, /baraagutv/ [baraagutv?] ‘ lumps ’) (Watson 2004). Pausal glottalisation in
Manaaxa manifests itself similarly. Examples provided by Werbeck (2001: 36–37)
include [maGrib?] ‘East ’, [haaDa?] ‘ this (MASC)’, [haanaak?] ‘ there ’.
7 The possibility of areally restricted pausal devoicing is implied in Kiparsky’s note
12, which refers to ‘ Turkish-style final devoicing ’ in Anatolian and other Northern
dialects of Arabic.
8 According to Reichmuth (1983 : 25), /l r m n/ are desonorised after /VV/. However,
his data shows all voiced consonants to be devoiced in pause, irrespective of the
weight of the preceding vowel (1983: 39f).
9 Kiparsky’s note 12 claims Sudanese Arabic to have final glottalisation. According to
Michael Redford (personal communication), however, the dialect of Omdurman
has final devoicing. For Central Urban Sudanese, this is confirmed by James
Dickins (personal communication) and Mustapha (1982).
10 In Kinderib, with the exception of the voiced pharyngeal approximant /?/ and the
liquids, all voiced consonants are devoiced (Jastrow 2003 : 5).
Syllabification patterns in Arabic dialects 347
final consonants in pause (e.g. Çukurova /Garb/ [Garp] ‘west ’, /ardv/ [artv]
‘earth’, /bala?/ [bala)] ‘he swallowed’; Procházka 2002: (63).11
As an areal feature, pausal desonorisation could be accommodated by
strict interpretation of the undominated FINALC constraint, expressed as
NOFINALCM – final consonants are not only weightless, they may also not
be linked to a mora directly associated with the word node.
4 Mora sharing
Of the dialects that fail to fully conform to the characteristic phenomena
of Kiparsky’s dialect types, the most significant are Central Sudanese,
Shukriyya and San‘ani. Central Sudanese and Shukriyya are worth
excluding at this point. Central Sudan is a plain to which hundreds of
different tribes congregated, resulting in dialect convergence which lead
to colliding linguistic systems. Of the alternants [’kalbana] and [ka’libna]
‘ our dog ’, [’kalbana] is now felt to be more prestigious and is apparently
the more recent, at least in urban centres (James Dickins, personal com-
munication) ; it may have originated through analogy to forms such as
[)aggana] ‘ours ’ and [bittana] ‘our daughter’, and may be due in part from
mimicking the more prestigious Cairene Arabic [kal’bina] while main-
taining the vowel and stress pattern that already existed for Sudanese.
Of the three dialect types drawn up by Kiparsky, the summary tables
indicate both that it is apparent CV dialects that diverge most from the
semisyllable analysis, and, if fast-speech phenomena are excluded, that
most divergent phenomena are those that involve long segments.
Apparently conflicting phenomena exhibited by what otherwise appear
to be CV dialects are: medial CVVC syllables (San‘ani, al-Hudaida,
Yaafi‘i, Yariimi, Ibbi, Middle Egyptian, Meccan), final CVCCC and
CVVCC syllables (San‘ani, Ibbi), syncope in CVCiCiVC+V (San‘ani, al-
Hudaida), and, in fast speech, medial -CCC- and initial consonant clusters
(San‘ani, al-Hudaida, Yariimi, Yaafi‘i). These dialects, I believe, form an
intermediate class, falling between C dialects and CV dialects due to the
relative dominance of the constraint REDUCE. I propose to name dialects
falling into this type Cv dialects, distinguished from CV dialects by the
lower case ‘ v’.
As a first stage in analysing these phenomena in Cv dialects, it is
necessary to recognise the prosodic difference between CVVC syllables
and CVCC syllables. Even in the most obediently CV dialect, Cairene,
CVVC appears in positions where CVCC is not permitted, as in [kaan
jiktib risaala] ‘ he was writing a letter’ vs. /bint kibiira/ [binti kbiira]
‘ a big girl ’ (Selkirk 1981, Watson 2002 : 71, 108). In Classical Arabic,
CVVC, but not CVCC, syllables may occur at the end of a poetic line,
and therefore participate in rhyme (Bohas 1975). These differences are
Syllabification patterns in Arabic dialects 349
also upheld in VC dialects: as seen above, VC dialects allow medial
CVVC, whereas medial CVCC is broken up postlexically to CVCiC, e.g.
Haifa [waa)di] ‘one (FEM) ’ vs. /xubz-na/ [xubizna] ‘our bread’. For VC
dialects, a claim that the final C of CVVC is licensed lexically as a semi-
syllable, but not postlexically, fails: on the basis of postlexical promotion
of LICENSE(m), medial CVVC syllables should not surface in VC dialects.
In the tableaux in (8), the shortened form *[babha] ‘her door’ is in-
correctly predicted to be the realised form.
(8) a. VC dialects: word level
[(baa)b]-ha Reduce Max(m) Dep(m) License(m)
™ i. (‘baa)bM.ha ** *
ii. (bab).ha ** *!
iii. (‘baa).(bi.ha) ***! *
b. VC dialects: postlexical level
License(m) Reduce Max(m) Dep(m)
i. (‘baa)bM.ha *! **
™ ii. (bab).ha ** *
iii. (‘baa).(bi.ha) ***! *
(9) Adjunction-to-Mora
s s s
m m £ m m
V C V C
350 Janet C. E. Watson
Adjunction-to-Mora adjoins a consonant to the mora of a preceding
vowel. Thus the CVVC syllable in San ’ani /kitaab-na/ [kitaabnaa] ‘ our
book ’ results from the consonant /b/ sharing the rightmost mora of
the long vowel /aa/. On the basis that ‘ subsyllabic constituents whose
elements are widely separated along the sonority scale are less marked than
constituents with closer sonority distance ’ (Broselow 1992: 15), a syllable-
final mora is more likely to dominate VC than CC (or VV), because of
the greater sonority distance between V and C. This accounts for the
propensity of medial CVVC syllables in dialects – VC dialects and Cv
dialects – which do not normally permit the surfacing of medial CVCC
syllables. In OT terms, Adjunction-to-Mora is expressed as the violable
constraint NOSHAREDMORA (10).
(10) NoSharedMora
Moras should be linked to single segments (Broselow et al. 1997: 65).
Assign a * for each segment (beyond one) attached to a mora (if a mora
is attached to n segments, the number of violation marks=n—1) (Frazier
2005).
In all dialects, SYLLBIN, which requires syllables not to exceed two moras,
is undominated ; however, the way in which trimoraic syllables are avoi-
ded differs between dialect types. In Cv and VC dialects, NOSHAREDMORA
is ranked low both at lexical and postlexical levels; in true CV dialects,
such as Cairene, NOSHAREDMORA is ranked high.
Mora sharing also accounts for final CVVCC syllables in Cv dialects, such
as San‘ani [maa kaanS] ‘he was not ’, [maa gaalS] ‘he didn’t say’. The final
Syllabification patterns in Arabic dialects 351
consonant is extrasyllabic word-finally, because the undominated con-
straint FINALC forces final consonants to be weightless (Kiparsky 2003 :
157). Adjunction-to-Mora links the second part of the long vowel and the
pre-final consonant:
(12) s (s)
m m
g a l <S>
In common with VC dialects, San‘ani and Hudaidi allow not only medial
CVVC, but also Vowel Deletion after geminates within the phonological
word, as in : [nimas(s)) al-)ammaam] ‘we wipe the bathroom’ vs.
[nimassi)] ‘ we wipe’ and [jitval(l)?u] ‘they (MASC) take (something) up ’
vs. [jitvalli?] ‘he takes (something) up ’ and Hudaidi [jitowwruh] ‘ they boil
it ’.14 In contrast to C dialects, however, they do not allow syncope which
would result in non-geminate clusters: thus *[jiktbu]</jiktibu/, indicat-
ing that geminate consonants are evaluated differently from non-geminate
consonant clusters. The difference between geminates and non-geminate
consonant clusters is this – unlike non-geminate consonant clusters,
geminates, in common with long vowels, can be reduced by degrees, still
maintaining a distinction with simplex consonants.15 In certain Arabic
dialects, geminates, unlike non-geminate consonants, also pattern pho-
nologically with long vowels: thus, in San‘ani, medial syllables ending
in the left leg of a geminate behave like medial CVV syllables, and not
like medial CVC syllables, with respect to stress (Watson 2002: 103ff).
In Classical Arabic, medial CVVC syllables are only attested when the
rightmost C is the left leg of a geminate, as in [dvaalluun] ‘lost (MASC PL) ’
(Wright 1975: 26) and in the form XI verb pattern [if?aalla] (Wright
1975: 29).
Thus, in some Cv dialects, and possibly also in VC dialects where
the geminate is not reduced postlexically to the length of a simplex con-
sonant (as in Upper Egypt ; cf. Nishio 1994 : 41, cited in Kiparsky 2003 :
150), long consonants share a mora with a preceding vowel, just as long
m m £ m m
V C V V C
The notion of a doubly linked consonant sharing a mora with a preceding
vowel has reputable precursors. This reflects Maddieson’s (1993) ‘ semi-
geminates ’ (consonants that are longer than simplex consonants but
shorter than geminate consonants), Hubbard’s (1995) analysis of the nasal
element of prenasalised consonants in Runyambo, and Broselow et al.’s
(1997) analysis of geminated in Malayalam, viz.:
(14) s s
m m
V C V
The difference between mora sharing in the Arabic case and that in
Runyambo (Hubbard 1995 : 251), Sukuma (Maddieson & Ladefoged
1993 : 277) and Malayalam (Broselow et al. 1997 : 69) is that the geminate
in Arabic is not heterosyllabic : it both shares a mora with the preceding
vowel and exclusively occupies a mora within the same syllable. The
derivation of San‘ani [nilab(b)sih] ‘we dress him’ from [nilabbis-ih] takes
place as below:
(15) Reduce/Adjunction-to-Mora
s s s s
m m m m m
n i l a b i s ih
Mora sharing in the case of long consonants and long vowels (i.e. CVCiCi
and CVVC syllables) not only reflects a phonological relationship between
long consonants and long vowels, but also a phonetic reality: instrumental
work in Broselow et al. (1995, 1997) has demonstrated for various dialects
of Arabic that the long vowel in a CVVC syllable is significantly shorter
than that in a CVV syllable, but longer than the short vowel in a CV or
CVC syllable ; similarly, the geminate consonant in a CVCiCi syllable is
longer than a simplex consonant but lacks the duration of a heterosyllabic
Syllabification patterns in Arabic dialects 353
geminate, and the pre-geminate vowel lacks the duration of a full short
vowel in a CV or CVC syllable.16
One additional constraint is needed, however, in order to assign a cost
to the strategy of degemination employed postlexically in some dialects.
I provisionally term this constraint LINKFAITH :17
(16) LinkFaith
If the number of syllable positions linked to Si=n, and SiRSo, then
the number of syllable positions linked to So=n.
(17) Cv dialects: word level
[jilabbis]-uu SyllBin Reduce LinkFaith NoSharedMora
mm
™ a. (jilabb).suu *
mmm
b. (jilabb).suu *!
c. (jilab).bi.suu *!
d. (jilab).suu *!
Not all Arabic dialects necessarily fit into these four dialect types.
Evidence from Libyan Tripoli suggests that just as San‘ani-type dialects
form an intermediate type between C and CV dialects, so Libyan Tripoli-
type dialects may form an intermediate type between C and VC dialects.
There are close historical and geographical links between the C dialect
areas and Libya, just as there are close historical links between the C
dialect areas and Yemen. These links are reflected in shared lexical items
(Behnstedt & Woidich 2005: 28–33), and it should be no surprise if they
are also reflected in the phonology.
The present study, which has considered new dialect data and re-
examined previously discussed data, shows that Kiparsky’s semisyllable
analysis accounts for most but not all characteristic syllabic differences
between Arabic dialect types. I provisionally propose that one character-
istic, final glottalisation/devoicing, be excluded from the analysis as an
areal rather than a syllabification phenomenon, and perhaps accounted
for by an undominated areal constraint NOFINALCm. Apparently deviant
CV dialects are not in fact members of the CV type, but rather fall into
a separate Cv syllabification type, affording a special status to long con-
sonants and/or vowels. The revised analysis accepts the superiority of
stratified constraint systems over systems in which constraints are evalu-
ated in parallel, but differs from Kiparsky (2003) in formally acknowl-
edging the prosodic difference between CVVC/CVCiCi syllables and
CVCC syllables. The result is a three-way, as opposed to a two-way,
bifurcation of mora-licensing, applicable at both the lexical and the post-
lexical levels. Moras may be unlicensed, moras may be shared by two
segments, or moras must be licensed and cannot be shared.
REFERENCES
Aoun, Yosef (1979). Is the syllable or the supersyllable a constituent ? MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 1. 140–148.
Arnold, Werner (1998). Die arabischen Dialekte Antiochiens. Wiesbaden :
Harrassowitz.
Behnstedt, Peter (1979). Die nordmittelägyptische buka}a-Dialekte. Zeitschrift für
Arabische Linguistik 3. 62–95.
Behnstedt, Peter (1985). Die nordjemenitischen Dialekte. Vol. 1: Atlas. Wiesbaden :
Reichert.
Behnstedt, Peter (1987). Die Dialekte der Gegend von Xa‘dah (Nord-Jemen).
Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz.
Syllabification patterns in Arabic dialects 355
Behnstedt, Peter & Manfred Woidich (1985). Die ägyptisch-aradischen Dialekte. 2 vols.
Wiesbaden : Reichert.
Behnstedt, Peter & Manfred Woidich (2005). Aradische Dialektgeographie : eine
Einführung. Leiden : Brill.
Bohas, Georges (1975). Métrique Arabe classique et moderne. Thèse de 3ème cycle,
Paris VIII.
Broselow, Ellen (1992). Parametric variation in Arabic dialect phonology. In Ellen
Broselow, Mushira Eid & John J. McCarthy (eds.) Perspectives on Arabic linguistics
IV. Amsterdam & Philadelphia : Benjamins. 7–45.
Broselow, Ellen, Marie Huffman, Su-I Chen & Ruohmei Hsieh (1995). The timing
structure of CVVC syllables. In Mushira Eid (ed.) Perspectives on Arabic linguistics
VII. Amsterdam & Philadelphia : Benjamins. 119–138.
Broselow, Ellen, Su-I Chen & Marie Huffman (1997). Syllable weight : convergence
of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14. 47–82.
Dickins, James (in preparation). A reference grammar of Sudanese Arabic. Wiesbaden :
Harrassowitz.
Diem, Werner (1973). Skizzen jemenitischer Dialekte. Beirut : Steiner.
Farwaneh, Samira (1995). Directionality effects in Arabic dialect syllable structure.
PhD dissertation, University of Utah.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich & Otto Jastrow (eds.) (1980). Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte.
Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz.
Frazier, Melissa (2005). Output–output faithfulness to moraic structure : new evidence
from an American English phenomenon. Paper presented at the 36th Meeting of
the North East Linguistic Society, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Goitein, S. D. (1960). The language of al-gades : the main characteristics of an Arabic
dialect spoken in Lower Yemen. Le Muséon 73. 351–394.
Greenman, Joseph (1979). A sketch of the Arabic dialect of the Central Yamani
Tih¿mah. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 3. 47–61.
Hubbard, Kathleen (1995). ‘ Prenasalised consonants ’ and syllable timing : evidence
from Runyambo and Luganda. Phonology 12. 235–256.
Ingham, Bruce (1971). Some characteristics of Meccan speech. Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies 34. 273–297.
Itô, Junko (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. PhD dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Itô, Junko (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7. 217–259.
Itô, Junko & Armin Mester (1992). Weak layering and word binarity. Report
LRC-92-09, Linguistic Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Jastrow, Otto (1980). Das mesopotamische Arabisch. In Fischer & Jastrow (1980).
140–173.
Jastrow, Otto (2003). Arabische Texte aus Kinderib. Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz.
Kiparsky, Paul (2003). Syllables and moras in Arabic. In Caroline Féry & Ruben
van de Vijver (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press. 147–182.
Maddieson, Ian (1993). Splitting the mora. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 83.
9–18.
Maddieson, Ian & Peter Ladefoged (1993). Phonetics of partially nasal consonants. In
Marie K. Huffman & Rena A. Krakow (eds.) Nasals, nasalization, and the velum.
San Diego : Academic Press. 251–301.
Mester, Armin & Jaye Padgett (1994). Directional syllabification in Generalized
Alignment. In Jason Merchant, Jaye Padgett & Rachel Walker (eds.) Phonology
at Santa Cruz 3. Santa Cruz : Linguistics Research Center. 79–85.
Munhall, Kevin, Carol Fowler, Sarah Hawkins & Elliot Saltzman (1992).
‘ Compensatory shortening ’ in monosyllables of spoken English. JPh 20. 225–239.
356 Janet C. E. Watson
Mustapha, Abdel Rahman (1982). Phonologie de l’Arabe Soudanais. PhD dissertation,
Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Naı̈m-Sanbar, Samia (1994). Contribution à l ’étude de l’accent yéménite : le parler des
femmes de l’ancienne génération. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 27. 67–89.
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht : Foris.
Nishio, Tetsuo (1994). The Arabic dialect of Qif_ (Upper Egypt): grammar and classi-
fied vocabulary. Tokyo : Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia
and Africa.
Port, Robert F., Jonathan Dalby & Michael O’Dell (1987). Evidence for mora timing
in Japanese. JASA 81. 1574–1585.
Procházka, Stephan (2002). Die arabischen Dialekte der Çukurova (Südtürkei).
Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz.
Reichmuth, Stefan (1983). Der arabische Dialekt der Tukriyya im Ostsudan.
Hildesheim : Olms.
Rossi, Ettori (1938). Nuove osservazioni sui dialetti del Yemen. Rivista degli Studi
Orientali 17. 460–472.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981). Epenthesis and degenerate syllables in Cairene Arabic.
In Hagit Borer & Yosef Aoun (eds.) Theoretical issues in the grammar of Semitic
languages. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT. 111–140.
Vanhove, Martine (2004). Deixis et focalisation : la particule ta en arabe de
Yafi‘ (Yémen). In Martine Haak, Rudolf de Jong & Kees Versteegh (eds.)
Approaches to Arabic dialects : a collection of articles presented to Manfred Woidich on
the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Leiden: Brill. 329–342.
Vogel, Irene (1999). Subminimal constituents in prosodic phonology. In S. J.
Hannahs & Mike Davenport (eds.) Issues in phonological structure. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia : Benjamins. 249–267.
Watson, Janet C. E. (1999). The syllable and syllabification in Modern Spoken
Arabic (Xan‘ani and Cairene). In Harry van der Hulst & Nancy A. Ritter (eds.) The
syllable : views and facts. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 501–525.
Watson, Janet C. E. (2002). The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford : Oxford
University Press.
Watson, Janet C. E. (2004). To what extent does the language of Yemeni radio plays
reflect language levelling in the community ? Paper delivered at The evolution
of Arabic urban vernaculars : the effects of migration and social changes, Aix-
en-Provence.
Watson, Janet C. E. (in press). Ein Märchen im arabischen Dialekt von Ibb. Zeitschrift
für Arabische Linguistik.
Watson, Janet C. E., Bonnie Glover Stalls, Khalid al-Razihi & Shelagh Weir (2006).
The language of Jabal R¿zi‡ : Arabic or something else ? Proceedings of the Seminar
for Arabian Studies 36. 35–41.
Werbeck, Wolfgang (2001). Laut- und Formenlehre des nordjemenitisch-arabischen
Dialekts von Man9Ha. Münster : Rhema.
Woidich, Manfred (1979). Zum Dialekt von il-‘ Aw¿m}a in der östlichen Warqiyya
(Ägypten). Part 1 : Einleitung, grammatische Skizze und Volkskundliches.
Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 2. 76–99.
Woidich, Manfred (1980). Das Ägyptisch-Arabische. In Fischer & Jastrow (1980).
207–242.
Woidich, Manfred (2006). Das Kairenisch-Arabische : eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden :
Harrassowitz.
Wright, W. (1975). A grammar of the Arabic language. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press.
Yoda, Sumikazu (2005). The Arabic dialect of the Jews of Tripoli (Libya). Wiesbaden :
Harrassowitz.